Another Bakery Discrimination Lawsuit

[Jarhyn]

But it turns out there is an existing legal precedent in the state that does require a baker to put words on a cake he disagrees with.

Is there? If so, perhaps you should trot out the evidence that this is the case.

Does it matter? Even if there was such a precedent, it doesn't have a substantial bearing on the actual problem that underlies the case. It is a bad precedent but not a bad outcome. It is a justified outcome for that case, that the baker who refused to make a cake at all is held to task. If the precedent does indeed get overturned in favor of 'serve all comers' with no obligation to make a specific message, the original claimant is still liable under the new precedent, because of the refusal to make any cake for the gays, instead of simply refusing to make a specifically 'gay' cake.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Most of us here are not those people. Most of the arguments here are not that argument. You are committing a strawman to fight against an argument that is not the one being made here. We will, most of us, join you in fighting against the government that enslaves people and forces them to bake any cake that anyone asks for. That is NOT an argument against telling a baker that if he makes plain whit three layer with explicit lack of knowledge about X, he cannot refuse that same service given explicit knowledge about that same x.

So, unless I am mistaken you do think there are times the government should force a baker to bake a cake he does not want to bake.

I only want to bake cakes lined with ricin.

Fucking government is forcing me to bake non-poisonous cakes for people (if I want to engage in commerce and be afforded all the other protections of society, to include a monetary system).

aa

 

[Jarhyn]

So, unless I am mistaken you do think there are times the government should force a baker to bake a cake he does not want to bake.

I only want to bake cakes lined with ricin.

Fucking government is forcing me to bake non-poisonous cakes for people (if I want to engage in commerce and be afforded all the other protections of society, to include a monetary system).

aa

While I agree with your desire to help, I stated my argument and position with what I feel was sufficient clarity. This does not really fit.

 

[KeepTalking]

Is there? If so, perhaps you should trot out the evidence that this is the case.

Does it matter? Even if there was such a precedent, it doesn't have a substantial bearing on the actual problem that underlies the case. It is a bad precedent but not a bad outcome. It is a justified outcome for that case, that the baker who refused to make a cake at all is held to task. If the precedent does indeed get overturned in favor of 'serve all comers' with no obligation to make a specific message, the original claimant is still liable under the new precedent, because of the refusal to make any cake for the gays, instead of simply refusing to make a specifically 'gay' cake.

You may be correct, but I asked the question knowing that dismal is wrong, and the baker in the case that set the precedent did not refuse to put a gay message on a cake, but rather refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but had no problem with baking wedding cakes for straight couples. As a result of the ruling in that case, the baker decided to stop selling wedding cakes entirely.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I only want to bake cakes lined with ricin.

Fucking government is forcing me to bake non-poisonous cakes for people (if I want to engage in commerce and be afforded all the other protections of society, to include a monetary system).

aa

While I agree with your desire to help, I stated my argument and position with what I feel was sufficient clarity. This does not really fit.

I apologize for intruding into what was at least perceived to be a 2-person conversation. And also for inadvertently ignoring what you wrote, while simultaneously quoting it in my response. I was not, in fact, desiring to help you with your argument. Rather, I get annoyed at this persistent notion that the government exists only to interfere and limit freedoms. My response to that notion is 'of course they do'. Even cake bakers are subject to rules and regulations on a federal level, particularly when doing so for commercial purposes.

Although heavily weighted with sarcasm and coarse language, the statement fits - admittedly maybe not with the conversation you were having.

aa

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So, unless I am mistaken you do think there are times the government should force a baker to bake a cake he does not want to bake.

I only want to bake cakes lined with ricin.

Fucking government is forcing me to bake non-poisonous cakes for people (if I want to engage in commerce and be afforded all the other protections of society, to include a monetary system).

aa

So you believe non-discrimination laws are exactly like laws against murder?

 

[credoconsolans]

The bakery did not refuse the hater service, they were more than happy to bake him a cake, and even provide him the means to put his hateful message on the cake. This is entirely different from the bakery that refused to bake a cake at all for gay customers.

Anyone who cannot see the distinction is either being willfully obtuse, or just trying to score points for their partisan political hobby horse.

You appear to be making a differentiation solely based on the content of the message. This is known as "viewpoint discrimination".

I'm pretty sure it's still legal in this country to say "God hates gays".

But the content of the message is the important thing. If the message is negative or hateful, it can be treated differently than a positive or neutral message.

If you make cakes saying "Congratulations, Jim and Jane" but refuse to make cakes saying "Congratulations, Jim and John", then you're engaging in discrimination because the content of the messages is the same and it's just not serving gay customers the same as other customers.

If you make cakes saying "I'm sorry to hear you have cancer and hope you get better" but refuse to make cakes saying "I'm glad you have cancer and hope you die horribly, you cheating whore", then that's fine because the negative content of the latter message means that it can and should be treated differently, even though it's perfectly legal to tell people that you hope they die of cancer.

This and this.

 

[RavenSky]

How do you draw the line between discriminating against the person vs disassociating one's company from the message?

How indeed. I don't know where to draw the line, but I can't see how forcing a cake decorator to write out hate speech is what religious freedom is all about.

I agree.

I am also trying to figure out how hate speech is a religious freedom for the person who was pretending to buy the cake, too.

 

[RavenSky]

I tend to think that if you make a cake with one shape for one customer, you should be willing to make a second cake for a second customer with substantially similar needs.

That said, refusing to make a cake at all for a couple because THEY are gay, and refusing to make a cake in a specific shape that a person objects with. I can't tell an artist that they must draw me a piece of gay pornography simply because they work on comission. But I can say they must not refuse my commission only because I myself happen to be gay.

It is a fine line but important. A baker may refuse to make a gay cake, but may not refuse to make a cake for gays. Similarly a baker may refuse to make a hate cake, but not refuse to make a cake for hateful people.

I think you have presented perfectly what some of us (me, for example) have been trying to figure out how to say.

 

[laughing dog]

It has been well-established for years the newspapers do not have to accept any advertising they don't want. So why would anyone in their right mind think they can force a business to accept any sort of message to be disseminated? This really is mind-boggling.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Because newspapers aren't cakes, and there is some sort of mysterious right to a cake.

 

[laughing dog]

Because newspapers aren't cakes, and there is some sort of mysterious right to a cake.

There is no mysterious right to a cake. If you cannot pay for a cake, you don't get one. And in this situation, the bigoted douchebag who you are whiteknighting could have the cake. He just couldn't make the bakery put his sentiments on it. Hence your response is simply pointless. Try to do better next time.

 

[dismal]

So, unless I am mistaken you do think there are times the government should force a baker to bake a cake he does not want to bake.

I only want to bake cakes lined with ricin.

Fucking government is forcing me to bake non-poisonous cakes for people (if I want to engage in commerce and be afforded all the other protections of society, to include a monetary system).

aa

I know you aren't stupid enough not to understand the difference between the government using force to prevent you from making a poison cake and using force to require you to put a message you disagree with on a cake.

 

[dismal]

Is there? If so, perhaps you should trot out the evidence that this is the case.

Does it matter? Even if there was such a precedent, it doesn't have a substantial bearing on the actual problem that underlies the case. It is a bad precedent but not a bad outcome. It is a justified outcome for that case, that the baker who refused to make a cake at all is held to task. If the precedent does indeed get overturned in favor of 'serve all comers' with no obligation to make a specific message, the original claimant is still liable under the new precedent, because of the refusal to make any cake for the gays, instead of simply refusing to make a specifically 'gay' cake.

There is a difference between refusing to sell someone a cake because they are gay or black and refusing to produce a cake with a message one does not agree with.

I believe in the earlier case the baker was quite willing to sell the gay people a cake.

 

[RavenSky]

There is a difference between refusing to sell someone a cake because they are gay or black and refusing to produce a cake with a message one does not agree with.

agree

I believe in the earlier case the baker was quite willing to sell the gay people a cake.

You "believe" inaccurately. The baker refused to sell the gay couple any cake at all.

David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop last year, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

Though the judge was sympathetic that cakes require artistry, he dismissed the idea that they constituted speech. In this case, the bakery refused to provide the cake before the couple could even specify what would or would not be on the cake, thus there is not even any speech to consider:

The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as “speech,” as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto.

The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what the cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding. Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious. The act of preparing a cake is simply not “speech” warranting First Amendment protection.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/

Interestingly, the above passage supports Jarhyn's position that the baker in the OP case actually has a good claim to refuse to write the hate message - as long as she baked the cake for the man.

Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respodnents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech.

It looks like the jerk-off in the OP article should have read the actual court ruling before trying to bully a baker into writing his hate speech.

And just in case you are thinking of Oregon instead of Colorado:

A couple who runs a bakery in Oregon has refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple planning to marry, claiming it’s against their beliefs. Sweet Cakes by Melissa owner Aaron Klein explained to one of the brides-to-be and her mother that they could not provide a cake, prompting the women to walk out and disgust. Klein says he’s okay with gay customers buying his products, but he cannot approve of a same-sex wedding

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/02/04/1536371/oregon-bakers-refuse-cake-for-same-sex-wedding/

or Iowa:

An Iowa lesbian couple is rightfully upset that a Des Moines baker refused to provide them with a wedding cake when they came in for a taste-test. Baker Victoria Childress told Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers that she could not do the cake because of her “convictions for their lifestyle,” claiming she was not discriminating against them, but just honoring her “walk with God.”

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/...uple-wedding-cake-because-of-their-lifestyle/

If you think there is some other baker out there that you "believe... was quite willing to sell the gay people a cake" you need to produce the evidence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Because newspapers aren't cakes, and there is some sort of mysterious right to a cake.

There is no mysterious right to a cake. If you cannot pay for a cake, you don't get one. And in this situation, the bigoted douchebag who you are whiteknighting could have the cake. He just couldn't make the bakery put his sentiments on it. Hence your response is simply pointless. Try to do better next time.

Who? I don't know who that is.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no mysterious right to a cake. If you cannot pay for a cake, you don't get one. And in this situation, the bigoted douchebag who you are whiteknighting could have the cake. He just couldn't make the bakery put his sentiments on it. Hence your response is simply pointless. Try to do better next time.

Who? I don't know who that is.

That is consistent with the content of your responses in this thread.

 

[TacticalLoco]

Hate speech is not free speech. Period.
This only confusing to the conservo-libertarians because they lack of understanding social interactions and behavior.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Hate speech is not free speech. Period.
This only confusing to the conservo-libertarians because they lack of understanding social interactions and behavior.

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
― Oscar Wilde

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
― Voltaire

“Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.”
― Neal Boortz

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
― H. L. Mencken

“Free speech is not speech you agree with, uttered by someone you admire. It's speech that you find stupid, selfish, dangerous, uninformed or threatening, spoken and sponsored by someone you despise, fear or ridicule. Free speech is unpopular, contentious and sometimes ugly. It reflects a tolerance for differences. If everyone agreed on all things, we wouldn't need it.”
― Robert J. Samuelson

 

[arkirk]

I think cakes ought to be considered a special case. A wedding cake is a celebration of something all the involved parties feel strongly about. I am curious why these people didn't want to seek out a gay baker. I am sure they exist and would probably welcome the business. I am not saying I want to deny these gay folks a right to a wedding cake. I am saying this should be a time of joy and not a time of struggle over something this trivial. It is not like there is just one baker in the world.